Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
[...]
Feedback welcome.
This is some awesome stuff. std.range and std.algorithm are really
coming together into a compelling whole. I don't know what else to
say - _you_ seem to know what you're doing!
It's a minor point, but in the docs, with all the templating madness
it gets very hard to find the name of the symbol actually being
documented. For example:
Filter!(unaryFun!(pred),Chain!(Ranges)) filter(alias pred,
Ranges...)(Ranges rs);
"filter" gets lost in the middle. Could it be highlighted, or moved
to the front (using a Pascal-like "func(params) : returntype" syntax
instead)?
Good point. Actually I've been experimenting with using "auto" for the
return type. That does work most of the time, but unfortunately ddoc
doesn't understand it. Then,
Also - "toe" is still a stupid name. ;) "first" and "last" would
have been my first choices, they seem so obvious.
Turns out toe isn't half bad when I was coding with it - all I needed
was something short and memorable.
One problem with "first" is that it sometimes suggests something else.
For example, if I have a generator for the numbers 1 to 10 and have
advanced it a bit, gen.first suggests I'm looking back to the very first
element, not the state of the iteration. I agree that gen.head isn't
terribly evocative either, but then at least it doesn't evoke something
wrong :o).
Anyhow, how about doing what Haskell does? They use "head" and "last".
And at least we'd be able to blame *them* if anyone doesn't like the
names :o). Thoughts?
Andrei
in that case, maybe have "current" and "last"?
also, I don't like the "empty" because it's a negative test and I'm a
positive person :)
I prefer something like Tango's "more" or Java's longer "hasNext".
